Fred Commons

So, then, which is it? That they will be materially identical, or not. It seems to me that this latest post directly conflicts with your previous one.

 

I'd agree that you need to time to properly formulate the idea, since apparently it doesn't even stay consistent over 24 hours & one forum reply...

 

While you're doing that, ponder on this. It doesn't typically mean a lot just to come up with ideas, at least in a scientific setting. You need to come up with ideas AND then provide evidence that supports those ideas. Citing Einstein in the way you did above is a deliberate red herring, because there was plenty of stuff that was proven while he was alive. Citing one example (ironically without a true citation, so I can't even verify it myself) in this way does not let you off this hook. At the very least, in my humble opinion, it smacks of laziness... "I'm just going to toss out an idea and let future generations figure out if it is right or not."

 

If you were truly interested, why wouldn't you be reading papers and NASA reports and so on? There is undoubtedly a great deal of information out there. I'll agree it will take some effort to find it; but learning how to use library and information resources well is a valuable skill to have if you are serious in this pursuit. There are other ways of comparing compositions of objects. What about spectra? What about even just pictures? If they are really the same thing, they ought to look somewhat similar, shouldn't they? I think if you really put some research in, you should be able to find a great deal of info. Yes, that will mean not just using Google, but actually going to a university library and probably asking a librarian for some help. But, if this is really a serious pursuit, this ought to be something you really want to do...

 

I guess what I am most disappointed in is that apparently you didn't even try to find the bodies' masses and volumes to calculate their densities. I mean, what if they were similar within a margin of error? Then you might actually have a nugget of info to back your idea up. But, it's almost like you know that they already won't match, so you come up with some other convenient hand-waving away of that idea. Again, if this is a serious pursuit, and you plan on being academically honest in this pursuit, why wouldn't you actually perform and post the calculations as well as cite where you got the original data from?

Bignose,

I really have not demonstrated inconsistancy between replies! The asteroids feature widely different compositions in line with chondritic (stoney) compositions with metallic (nickle/iron) ones. My statement that the satellites would be materially identical to the asteroids and each other would be within these wide parameters.

You do not seem to miss an opportunity to make a sarcastic "dig" or pedantic criticisism, yet react at the merest negative in my reply (e.g. suggesting that the reason you failed to see my comparisons between mine and established theories and failed to read my predictions, was because you were not being open and honest).

By contrast, I have conceded all of my errors.

So far Bignose, I have been insulted at every exchange (lazy, off the hook, hand waving away, et al), with the sole exception of "Hoopla."

Your provocative manner and, by implication, peninsular facial appendage, would invite a swift physical rebuffal in the real world of ordinary people. Not by me of course, I am a gentleman and have the tolerance of a 2nd Dan Karate Black Belt.

At no point, has a moments consideration been given to the possibility, that my theory may be correct and may have merits, in principle.

That interpretation by rational argument may just be acceptable for a forum.

As I said to Hoopla, I am not chasing a PhD, simply looking for open discussion about my ideas with.

This has been an unexpectedly unpleasant experience, which I do not intend to follow any further and will now clear down all references to this site.

Fred Commons.

Bignose,

Thank you for your tenacity of patience, towards my (humble) self.

The problem with mass and volumes (densities) lies with the varied "speculated" on my part, material. Specifically, that coming from a planetary origin, they would (very broadly speaking), have a "crustal" composition (c.f. Basalt, Granitic, etc), or a "magmatic" or metallic "core" type material composition. In line with the (broadly speaking), stoney, stoney/iron and iron meterites/ asteroids.

In the same way that Einstein's predictions regarding large gravitational bodies bending the path of light, was only proven decades after his death, with studies made during solar eclipses, so I realistically, only expect my prediction re the satellite's compositions, to be proven by future probes.

Clearly, I am no "Einstein", my theory relies entirely upon reason and not mathematics. My maths has been established as weak by implication, but I hope that my expectedly wide densities of those satellite bodies, will be an acceptable reason for not using mathematical density estimates - they would simply yield inconclusive results.

Thank you for your time and my absolute assurance that I intended no offence by my defensible responce.

I need time to get my theory isolated from the website - rewriting it?

Kind regards,

Fred

Fred,

 

welcome to our website. You should find here that we aren't disdainful of anyone's ideas. What we support more than anything else is the scientific method.

 

That means, it isn't enough just to have a new idea. What you need to do is demonstrate, with objective, clear cut evidence, that your idea makes predictions that are at least as good as the currently accepted idea.

 

So, what I'd like to see, then, is a brief synopsis of your idea and the predictions it makes. As well as a comparison to the current ideas and the predictions they make. And lastly, compare both of those to the current best knowledge.

 

In effect, this is the scientific method in action.

 

Lastly, if I may give you some advice on what not to do: Don't just tell us your idea is great. And don't just make disparaging comments about anyone who doesn't immediately embrace your idea. What wins scientific type people over is providing evidence. The more evidence you can provide that shows your idea's predictions match experimentally measured data, the better. That's what scientists want to see. Predictions from an idea that matches measurements.

Dear Bignose,

Many thanks for your time.

If I may say a few words in my defence;

(i) I sincerely believed that the Solar System objects and their "properties" were common knowledge, requiring no observational data et al - I accept that was an error.

(ii) However, I have made comparisons with other theories - albeit of a rudimentary nature (space limitations/appearing to be patronising to a more knowledgable audience). For example, re the older planetary origin of the asteroids, I point out the flawed logic therein. vs my own theory (pedantically I reject "exploding" for "disrupting" mechanisms). I believe that my arguments against the Jovian gravitational field preventing the asteroids from forming a planet, on the grounds that the theory his "highly" selective regarding when it becomes too disruptive to form a planet.

Further, again regarding Jupiter, the respectable theory for the formation of the Great Red Spot has a serious flaw to it - it removed the metallic hydrogen core, and thereby, the means for Jupiter to generate its magnetosphere.

(iii) You state that a theory should make predictions that can be validated by experiment or observation and that mine does not. This is not true, it does. To reiterate from my theory (not verbatum), the four small satellites of Jupiter and one of Saturn that rotate their parent planets in the opposite direction to all other satellites in the Solar System (except Triton, a captured comet?), will ALL be found to be materially identical to each other and the asteroids!

Bignose, there is enough in my reply above, to refute those criticisms and appear to demontstrate that you simply did not read my theory with an honest approach and open mind.

I completely accept that my B I G pronouncement of the theory was...erm..inappropriate to this forum. It was intended to "stand out" by being "provocative" in the vast website sea - worse, it was probably the cause of you and your illustrious colleagues unfavourable reception. Ce la Vie!

Thank you for your time.

Fred

!

Moderator Note

 

Fred

 

New theories are kept in the Speculations forum - thus I have moved the thread to here. Take a look at the speculation rules at the top of this thread list.

 

Additionally - we do not want threads opened merely to drive traffic to a different site; links should only be used to support arguments presented on the forum and not to make the argument itself. On this note I have deleted the link. If you wish members to critique your idea please provide a summary here.

 

Many thanks. Do not respond to this mod note within the thread.

 

"My theory challenges the long-held paradigm, that the asteroids did not have a planetary origin."

 

I didn't know this was the common belief. Can you be more specific about your idea?

 

There seem to be some major hurtles yet outstanding in the formation of our solar system. Perhaps you have a good idea.

 

But I will tell you one thing Bignose. If you cant do the math, get out of the fire, or lose your dignity. It won't be the first time I've seen this. The calculus is intrinsic to modern physical science (Blame Newton, Leibniz and one hundred others for daring to divide by zero). Your ideas may be exactly right. But if you cannot express them in mathematical terms, no one will take your rhetoric seriously. And if someone else also thinks of your idea, but who does know the math, you will get all huffy-puffy claiming your theory was stolen. I'm just telling you how it is.

 

No one will care if you cant do the math. And you better darn well keep your logic straight, or people like me will have you for lunch.

Decraig,

My name is Fred Commons..erm.. not "Bignose," he was someone responding to my theory!

I really do not know how to reply to your comments.

I certainly did not expect to be the subject of your viceral and offensive "scientific method." Perhaps we could meet face to face to discuss your points?

Fred.

Fred,

as long as the logic is straight and the ideas tally with observation, not doing the maths isn't a problem; you might even get someone here to do the maths for you.

The other requirement is that this new idea is useful.It would need to explain observations which the current ideas don't explain.

 

If you can't do that then the maths is irrelevant.

 

If your idea meets those criteria then post a summary of it here.

if not, then don't bother; it will get torn to shreds.

Dear John,

Not sure how the forum works but assume you will be privvy to my replies to the above people.

There is therefor a risk of repetition in this reply.

Briefly, whilst yes my maths is weak, there is not the need when all my theory does, is explain what is currently very well known ("general knowledge"), in a new way.

That is it.

I do make comparisons between aspect of my theory with relevent "respectable" scientific ones, which by virtue of the application of plausibility and common-sense, favours my own interpretation(s).

That so many anomalies can be explained by one event, yet does not warrent a rudimentary pause for consideration, but attracts instead criticism for the lack of mathematical procrastination, is a disappointment, shall we say.

My idea explains a very great deal in a comprehensive and ligical manner.

My feeling is that the theory has not been looked at with impartial interest at all. So many points made, would not have been made, had my theory been read fully.

That I used the same attention grabbing (outrageous!) opening has clearly coloured its reception by you and your colleagues. A blunder on my part!

Not sure how to proceed against so much negativity!

Thank you for your time.

Fred

fred, go ahead and post the cliff notes on the idea....it seems to me that the asteroid belt might be the result of a lagrangian point where the leftover planetesimal material collected during solar system beginnings and is not a result of a major collision .....I haven't looked deeply into the subject, but seems interesting.....edd

Dear Hoola,

Hells Bells!

What a friendly person you are, no vitriol, no criticisms indicating that you have not read my theory, no threats!

All I wanted was for adult and unbiased discussions about my ideas - I am not looking for a damned PhD, just pleasant and open exchanges.

Thank so very much for your kindness - but not sure if my theory (if I can extricate it from the dreaded website), will not be, what was the term, "shredded!"

Fred

My theory challenges the long-held paradigm, that the asteroids did not have a planetary origin.

Solar System wide anomalies, are logical consequences of my proposed, catastrophic, event.

The attitude of the scientific community towards my theory has been disdainful.

So, the only "platform" open to my ideas, was by a website.

Please, using GOOGLE.COM, read my theory (far too long for this space),on;

<link removed by mod>

I have just learned about "science forums," so am testing the water. My hope is for more immediacy than from a website, regarding feedback.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your "disdain free" comments.

Fred